Spain asks: If Google search results make your business look bad, can you sue?

Los Alfaques, a bucolic campground near the Spanish town of Tarragona, isn't happy with Google. That's because searches for "camping Alfaques" bring up horrific images of charred human flesh—not good for business when you're trying to sell people on the idea of relaxation. The campground believes it has the right to demand that Google stop showing "negative" links, even though the links aren't mistakes at all.

Are such lawsuits an aberration, or the future of Europe's Internet experience in the wake of its new "right to be forgotten" proposals?

How Los Alfaques is seen by Google

Fireball

In 1978, Los Alfaques was the site of a horrific accident. A tanker truck carrying 23 tons of fuel left a refinery that morning and was driving to Barcelona in the summer heat. The truck apparently sprang a leak. As it passed the campground, a white cloud of vapor drifted from the road toward hundreds of curious campers. The cloud ignited without warning—carrying the fire all the way back to the truck, which exploded into a massive fireball. More than 200 people were instantly incinerated. (The episode became a 2007 movie called Tarragona: Ein Paradies in Flammen; many of the tourists at the camp were Germans.)

The tragedy happened through no fault of Los Alfaques, but it continues to dog the campground three decades later. A Google search for the camp brings up images from the aftermath, a Wikipedia article on the disaster, YouTube clips showing Spanish news accounts from the time, and more.

Last year, the owner of Los Alfaques, Mario Gianni, sued Google's Spanish subsidiary over the search results. As Spanish newspaper El Paísput it, this was because "potential users might lose interest in going to the campsite." A Spanish blog covering the case expands on the complaint. The search results "violate the plaintiff’s right to honor and damages its reputation. The complaint sought moral damages, as well as an injunction to stop showing those results."

The right to be forgotten

Spain has a tough set of policies regarding the "right to be forgotten," under which people can go to the courts or the country's data protection authority to demand companies delete various records about them. (For instance, Facebook might have to remove a person's photos from the Web if the person later wants them down). But this raises all sorts of thorny questions once it goes beyond a demand that some marketer remove your dossier from its database. What happens when you want to remove information from news accounts?

A rash of cases in Spain are now testing the law's limits, though few have been ruled on yet. Peter Fleischer, a privacy lawyer at Google writing in his personal capacity, noted last year that he understands some of the issues, but doesn't believe search engines should be forced to adjudicate them:

The 2007 film poster

People who feel that information about them was wrongly published by these web sites can always ask them to correct or delete it. But newspapers and government websites usually have published this information legally, or indeed may even be legally obligated to publish it, or may be exercising their rights of freedom of expression. As search engine intermediaries, Google and other search engines play no role in what these web sites publish, or in deciding whether they should revise or remove content based on someone's privacy claim against them.

That's why I think it's wrong that the Spanish Data Protection Authority has launched over a hundred different privacy suits against Google, demanding that Google delete web sites from its index, even though the original websites that published the information (including Spanish newspapers and Spanish official government journals) published that information legally and continue to offer it. The legal question is important: should search engines like Google be responsible for the content of the web sites that they index?

"The right to be forgotten is of course not an absolute right. There are cases where there is a legitimate and legally justified interest to keep data in a data base. The archives of a newspaper are a good example. It is clear that the right to be forgotten cannot amount to a right of the total erasure of history. Neither must the right to be forgotten take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media."

Legal scholars like Jeffrey Rosen remain skeptical that such a right won't lead to all sorts of problems for free expression. But in Spain, the debate continues. Last week, Los Alfaques lost its case—but only because it needed to sue (US-based) Google directly. Gianni is currently deciding whether such a suit is worth pursuing.

This is just another case of people wanting the world to never advance technologically. Pre-internet, this news would not be common knowledge - if you wanted to find a campground, you'd call the area and ask, or look in a local phone book, or ask a travel agent - none of those sources would have volunteered information about this accident.

Now however, everything that is related to a name/geographic area/whatever is going to show up in a search - and the people don't like it. It's just changing times - you can't legislate the internet out of existence - and that is essentially what these sorts of lawsuits want to do (much like the lawsuits relating to disparaging comments on blogs relating to businesses in some other countries).

While I am sympathetic to the plight of association with such a tragedy (those pictures seriously just disturbed me), a historical event that involves hundreds of people is simply not subject to the same reasonable takedown of data as, say, a single photo of a single living person.

Perhaps changing the name of the camp ground would be a good thing if you want to disassociate the camp ground from its history.

Remids me of something Maddox posted in his, I hate Sasha Grey rant.

She recently made headlines when she was chastised for "promoting child literacy" by reading to kids in an elementary school. She went on talk shows to do damage control by stating that she's now an "ex-porn star," and that she shouldn't be stigmatized just because the children she read to might Google her name and find that she starred in "No Swallowing Allowed 13." You know what? I agree. Porn stars shouldn't be stigmatized, because pretty much everyone looks at porn. But when you go out of your way to distance yourself from your past by telling everyone that you're now a legitimate actress and an "artist," guess what? You can't keep using your porn name and notoriety to land speaking engagements, acting gigs or signings. Want to be thought of as a legitimate actress? Fine, then don't keep calling yourself Sasha Grey. You're no longer Sasha. You're Marina Hantzis from Sacramento.

I think there's a difference between removing personal data, and removing historic data.

For instance, if one of the _people_ at the camp wanted their name redacted, that would be a fair request.The camp, however, is now a site with a...marked history. By making this request, they are functionally requesting the censoring of history, even though that isn't exactly their intent.

Changing the name seems like an absolute no-brainer. Titanic, Hindenburg, Ford Theater, Ford Pinto for that matter, Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Edmund Fitzgerald, Sarah Palin (sorry )... when bad things happen, people will remember, and the interwebz remember forever. You can't eliminate the bad thing from history, but if you want people to find your campground online, but you don't want them finding references to something terrible that happened 30 years ago, a new name seems just the ticket.

I think there's a difference between removing personal data, and removing historic data.

Absolutely. Joe Smith posts something ridonculous on Facebook. Yup, he's got the right to have that removed, he's the owner of said stupidity.

Now, Joe Smith gets hammered, plows into a busload of nuns (first there were some, then there were none) killing 10 out of 15 on the bus. Joe doesn't get to sue Google 10 years down the line when he can't find work because employers' Google his name, and find he's the man that killed 10 nuns (a historic and factual event). Especially since Google is simply a search engine, it is the responsibility of the websites linked to be truthful and accurate in the information they provide. So, two factors at work here. One the onus likes on the sites reporting the information, not the search engine. Two, when it is a historical event or report that the plaintiff doesn't own, they have no right to have that information pulled. Pol Pot's relatives don't get to sue Google if they find themselves factually linked to Pol Pot's genocidal rampage in Cambodia.

I'm not at all sympathetic to the campground about Google coming up with articles and links about this historical event which really happened. Google only reports what is on the web, and this is on the web.

On the other hand, I don't know that pictures of charred human flesh should be popping up randomly for people who aren't looking for them. Are the pictures that come up in that search really going to do less harm to someone's psyche than a nude picture blocked by SafeSearch? I wouldn't want to see those right before going to sleep. They are pretty horrifying.

I don't see this as a lawsuit issue, but maybe Google should think about smarter filtering.

On the other hand, I don't know that pictures of charred human flesh should be popping up randomly for people who aren't looking for them. Are the pictures that come up in that search really going to do less harm to someone's psyche than a nude picture blocked by SafeSearch? I wouldn't want to see those right before going to sleep. They are pretty horrifying.

I don't see this as a lawsuit issue, but maybe Google should think about smarter filtering.

The images only show up if safe search is turned off (on the basic search page). Leave it on moderate or strict, and you don't see them. So, I don't get the outrage.

I don't want people associating my camp site with this horrible event....Let me turn it into a key international law suit that will be covered around the world.This camp site doesn't want to win, it wants the publicity.

I'm not at all sympathetic to the campground about Google coming up with articles and links about this historical event which really happened. Google only reports what is on the web, and this is on the web.

On the other hand, I don't know that pictures of charred human flesh should be popping up randomly for people who aren't looking for them. Are the pictures that come up in that search really going to do less harm to someone's psyche than a nude picture blocked by SafeSearch? I wouldn't want to see those right before going to sleep. They are pretty horrifying.

I don't see this as a lawsuit issue, but maybe Google should think about smarter filtering.

I was thinking along the same lines. The pictures are historical fact, so suing/ removing isn't the answer. Better would be to ask Google to do something about the presentation of the search results in this case.

Hmmm... did someone bring this up at Mobile World Conference in Barcelona? Tarragona is awfully close to there.

While it's true and a significant event, I think Google is turning a blind eye to the issue because Alfaques campground doesn't want to buy ads to push them to the top of the list.

Alfaques probably sees this as indirect extortion; Google's not doing it on purpose, but they won't correct their algorithm without cash, particularly European field offices. (http://paidcontent.org/article/419-goog ... legations/ As prior articles will tell you, "Don't be evil" is apparently a U.S. Mantra until it reaches national attention.)

As for the comment vitriol above: it was an ACCIDENT. The truck was overloaded, a jawdropping fact these days when better protections are in place, but a common practice at the time to maximize the profit of their deliveries back then. They chose a rural highway to avoid toll, otherwise this wouldn't have happened at all (Umbrella road arguments aside: "What if it was a highway next to a city instead of a campground?"... well, what if it was in the middle of nowhere and only the driver died? What if something in the road like a pothole triggered the leak? What if the truck wasn't overloaded and ended up leaking just the same?) The tank wasn't inspected before the run, again, a common practice back then.

Malice in this case is so indirect that there is no faulted party as the cause of the BLEVE (Google it). It could have been prevented, but a need for prevention does not necessarily imply blame. It was over 30 years ago... it's like saying New York doesn't deserve a tourism industry after 9/11 occured. Be realistic. Do you really think that freak occurence is going to happen to that campground once again? I don't advocate deleting history, but this is GOOGLE, not a national archive. Pad the results a little.

I think there's a difference between removing personal data, and removing historic data.

For instance, if one of the _people_ at the camp wanted their name redacted, that would be a fair request.

Really? So the newspapers, etc should go back into their archives and delete that person's name? Even if that person was being quoted in the article? How about if it was a famous person / public figure? Would this only apply to bystanders, or would the truck driver have the same right? What if the campgroup was called "Pablo Garcia's Campground"?

On the other hand, I don't know that pictures of charred human flesh should be popping up randomly for people who aren't looking for them. Are the pictures that come up in that search really going to do less harm to someone's psyche than a nude picture blocked by SafeSearch? I wouldn't want to see those right before going to sleep. They are pretty horrifying.

I don't see this as a lawsuit issue, but maybe Google should think about smarter filtering.

The images only show up if safe search is turned off (on the basic search page). Leave it on moderate or strict, and you don't see them. So, I don't get the outrage.

I still get them with Safe Search set to Moderate (the recommended setting). They are hidden if I switch to Strict. I think they should be hidden under Moderate as well. It's not something I feel outrage about, but I do think it would be more appropriate that way.

This really is a difficult issue. I truly do see both sides of this and feel horribly for the campsite - especially because the tragedy was in no way their fault.

Ultimately, though, I have to side with Google. They are not trying to maliciously damage the camp's tourism. They are also a non-government entity and should not have to comply with absurd demands.

If the camp wants to "be forgotten," they need to take matters into their own hands and do what companies do when PR against them is exceptionally negative: change their name.

Nor should Google ensure the pictures don't show up in SafeSearch, which is how the function is SUPPOSED to work? (i.e.: voluntary censorship of exposure to minors/sensitive audiences vs. censorship of facts by removing them completely) Google is not Wikipedia after all.

The solution may be easier than people think. Certainly changing the name is an option.

But Google should be showing items that are a bit more recent first. It's possible the view count of the old old pictures are still there. So the answer is for the campground to start having people who visit upload pictures of their time at the camp with the right name and tags. Add lots of tags with pictures of the area. The people working should be uploading pictures of people at the camp, the camp should be uploading people at the camp.

Have people in the area see the new pictures and select them. View them, comment on them. And soon, those will be the ones that come up. It has to be to many different sites. Set up a party and have people get free copies, (and have pictures uploaded). Make sure drunken face pictures are excluded. The courts is not the way to go. there are other ways to manage SEO concerns.

I think there's a difference between removing personal data, and removing historic data.

For instance, if one of the _people_ at the camp wanted their name redacted, that would be a fair request.

Really? So the newspapers, etc should go back into their archives and delete that person's name? Even if that person was being quoted in the article? How about if it was a famous person / public figure? Would this only apply to bystanders, or would the truck driver have the same right? What if the campgroup was called "Pablo Garcia's Campground"?

The sooner everybody accepts that privacy is dead, the better.

I can't remember the exact law surrounding "privacy" but I do remember there are specific laws about what constitutes "public" knowledge and "private" knowledge in terms of publications. (I don't mean public knowledge as in copyright stuff btw)